In English counties there are so non understandable dialects that people from neighbouring villages can't understand each other. English dialects from Edinburg or Wales are extremely hard to understand. So, even Englishmen need an interpretor to talk each other (but they have the same syntax! that's why that is English language).

Yiddish? That sounds pure German C'mon it's 20 years of the Ukrainian independence, they don't have any fleet already (actually it grieves me).

That's the whole point of the idiom. "German" at the turn of the 20th century was more of a continuum than a language. Hence, somebody from the low German lands would have a rather easy time understanding Dutch, but would be completely unable to understand Bavarian (a high German "dialect"). The question then, is why is Dutch a language, while other distinct forms of speech in the same family are only dialects of "German"? The difference between a language and a dialect is completely political, and I suspect that is why you are in disagreement with Nektarios.

A good modern day example is Chinese. Really, the "dialects" of Chinese are languages in their own right (I would say that they are more diverse than the so-called Romance languages), but for political and historical reasons, they are termed dialects instead of languages. I actually find it sad that Mandarin, a tongue so different from Middle Chinese, was chosen to be the standard language. Hakka would have been a better choice.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 03:35:54 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

In English counties there are so non understandable dialects that people from neighbouring villages can't understand each other. English dialects from Edinburg or Wales are extremely hard to understand. So, even Englishmen need an interpretor to talk each other (but they have the same syntax! that's why that is English language).

Yiddish? That sounds pure German C'mon it's 20 years of the Ukrainian independence, they don't have any fleet already (actually it grieves me).

That's the whole point of the idiom. "German" at the turn of the 20th century was more of a continuum than a language. Hence, somebody from the low German lands would have a rather easy time understanding Dutch, but would be completely unable to understand Bavarian (a high German "dialect"). The question then, is why is Dutch a language, while other distinct forms of speech in the same family are only dialects of "German"? The difference between a language and a dialect is completely political, and I suspect that is why you are in disagreement with Nektarios.

A good modern day example is Chinese. Really, the "dialects" of Chinese are languages in their own right (I would say that they are more diverse than the so-called Romance languages), but for political and historical reasons, they are termed dialects instead of languages. I actually find it sad that Mandarin, a tongue so different from Middle Chinese, was chosen to be the standard language. Hakka would have been a better choice.

Chinese is a little unique, though, isn't it, in that writing is mutually intelligible?

What I mean is, a Hakka-speaker could write a letter to a Cantonese-speaker and both would be able to understand the content. Contrariwise, were the same letter to be read aloud by the Hakka-speaker to the Cantonese-speaker, only the Hakka-speaker would understand what was/is being said.

What I mean is, a Hakka-speaker could write a letter to a Cantonese-speaker and both would be able to understand the content. Contrariwise, were the same letter to be read aloud by the Hakka-speaker to the Cantonese-speaker, only the Hakka-speaker would understand what was/is being said.

That is partially true. In practice, there are a lot of characters used in one regional tongue which do not appear in others. This is true of Cantonese, for example, where the characters used for the third person pronoun, the copula, the plural marker for pronouns, the possessive marker, and the verb to come (among others) are different from Mandarin. But yes, generally speaking, the writing can be mutually intelligible if characters common to both tongues are exclusively used, whereas speech is not generally mutually intelligible.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 09:56:13 PM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Yes, I saw it the first time. Although it acknowledges regional differences, it doesn't address how that affects its results, just what is "traditional."

It also seems to show a growing preference of a course for Ukraine independent of the EU and Russia.

Btw, substantiation means some action actually practicing what is preached, like the independence referendum. And you pretend to be a anglophone.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That would be better, and a little more traditional. One has to be careful what transliteration one puts in front of Americans; some of the resulting sounds are simply ghastly.

True, but unless an American already knows the language there is no way they'd differentiate between х and г (Ukrainian pronunciation). And it is doubtful they'd come up with anything close to и / ы for with "y".

True, but unless an American already knows the language there is no way they'd differentiate between х and г (Ukrainian pronunciation).

Still better that Poles. In the pronunciation I hear on TV the Americans (or native English speakers in general) seem to pronounce these two sounds (in English) as separate sounds, although they might not know that in Ukrainian there is such a distinction too. On the other hand in Poland the sound described in Cyrillic whit 'г' has already disappeared. Little amount of people can hear it, even less - pronounce.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

All both of them were Russians? I suppose there are Ukrainian linguists that claim Russian language if a dialect of the Ukrainian.

It doesn't matter if one is Russian, what is important is whether one's political ideology is what drives one's scientific work. Lomonosov was very much a part of the ideology of the Russian Empire. Dismissing the Ukrainian language and people was part of the agenda. Trubetzkoy was a Eurasianist. If you read the linked essay, it isn't a scientific work at all. It is more a point of aesthetics. I don't think Vladik could produce a peer reviewed academic work published in the last thirty years that claims Ukrainian is just a dialect of Russian.

I think only the most crazy of Ukrainians would claim Russian as a dialect of Ukrainian. Where Ukrainian nationalism appears in scholarship, it is usually connected with Ruthenians. In general the direction most scholars who don't simply regurgitate Muscovite propaganda are heading is to question the idea of East Slavic linguistic unity during the time of Kyivs'ka Rus'. Novgorod may yet prove to be the thorn in the side of Muscovite ambitions, thanks to the early attestation of its language.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

True, but unless an American already knows the language there is no way they'd differentiate between х and г (Ukrainian pronunciation).

Still better that Poles. In the pronunciation I hear on TV the Americans (or native English speakers in general) seem to pronounce these two sounds (in English) as separate sounds, although they might not know that in Ukrainian there is such a distinction too. On the other hand in Poland the sound described in Cyrillic whit 'г' has already disappeared. Little amount of people can hear it, even less - pronounce.

just grab an Arab. We have it. غ

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

That is for sure. We had a delegation of Russians here back in the '90's, and since the plant was in Ukraine, we had one of our Ukrainian engineers escort them as a translator. As he was addressing them, one of the delegation (who, indeed were Russian) asked him why he kept speaking to them in Polish.

I'm well aware of the difference between syntax and lexicon. Even very basic things such as showing possession and obligation are much different in typical, spoken Ukrainian than Russian. Ukrainian is not just Russian with a few different words.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

That is for sure. We had a delegation of Russians here back in the '90's, and since the plant was in Ukraine, we had one of our Ukrainian engineers escort them as a translator. As he was addressing them, one of the delegation (who, indeed were Russian) asked him why he kept speaking to them in Polish.

I'm well aware of the difference between syntax and lexicon. Even very basic things such as showing possession and obligation are much different in typical, spoken Ukrainian than Russian. Ukrainian is not just Russian with a few different words.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Didn't you claim to be Egyptian? Russian/Bulgarian г is like Egyptian ﺝ (geem). Ukrainian г is like Egyptian ﻩ‎ (ha).

ﻍ‏ (ghain) ‎, on the other hand, is like French r, a sound which does not exist in Ukrainian or Russian. Ukrainian/Russian x is like Arabic ﺥ‎ (kha), Bulgarian x is like ﻩ‎ (ha).

Church Slavonic, which is what I understand what was being discussed, pronounces it like غ

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Slavons were such a Christian, holy people, that they never left church. That's why we call it Church Slavonic. Sometime around the time the Mongols destroyed Kiev, the Slavons who were left mysteriously vanished. Some say they were taken up to heaven like Elias. Even today, there is many a good priest who will tell you we will all speak Church Slavonic in heaven. And it's just so.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Hmm. That's odd. I've always heard it is Coptic from the Copts, Syriac from the Syrians, Ge'ez from the Tewahedo, etc. I guess maybe it will be like one of those museums where you pick up the headset of your choice language...

Otto Meinardus has a lovely line in describing the world view of the Copts: "God takes care of his own, i.e. the Monophysite [sic] Copts, and will judge everyone else accordingly."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Hahaha. That is so true. After liturgy last week I observed a conversation between two friends from the church, one of whom is from Cairo (I think) and the other from Alexandria, that went like this:

Cairene: I really like Abouna Filemon (the priest who had served the liturgy that day)...he is a very holy man. You know while everyone was arguing among each other during the (agape) meal, I looked over and expected to see him sitting in his chair (the chair that is reserved for him out of respect), but instead he was sitting on the floor, quietly reading over the scriptures and praying. Just like a monk! He is more holy than the rest of us, I think.

Alexandrian: Of course he is...you know why? He is from Alexandria, like me!

They then commenced bickering and laughing at each other. "Ohhh, THIS guy...Alexandrians are like this, you see! They think they are better than everybody" "You are just jealous you aren't one of us!", etc. It's like going to the church of Mari Abbot and Costello sometimes, I swear...